Click on image for pdf.
Previous EDTweaks can be found at www.edtweak.org.
And thanks to my brother for making the connection between the Joe Wilson “You lie” outburst and this classic Bob Dylan performance.
Thomas J. Mertz
Category Archives: Accountability
(Updated) MMSD Board of Education Agenda — Lost & Found (and comments)
Update: Board President Arlene Silveira sent me a copy of an amended agenda and the Wisconsin Association of School Boards resolutions are now an action item for the Students Achievement and Performance Monitoring Committee (committee agenda here). The “Weekly Notice” link has also been fixed (over the weekend…that’s impressive).
On the WASB matter, I’ve had lots of talks with Board members in Madison and elsewhere about how to get schools the resources they need. One idea that has some support is adding a dedicated statewide sales tax to the school finance mix. It is clear that the continued shift to property taxes cannot be sustained, that the current sources of state revenues are not sufficient or sustainable and that the resultant program and service cuts in schools around the state are forcing districts to endanger our proud tradition of quality public education for all. A sales tax won’t fix everything, but it will help. Board members (in Madison and elsewhere) have been supportive but the idea may have come together too late to become part of the WASB resolution process this year. We’ll see.
(Original Post, see comments also)
It was a more than little difficult finding the agendas for the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education Committee meetings scheduled for Monday, September 14.
First, it looks like MMSD is again neglecting to send notices to those who subscribed to their “send notices” list. Since no notice had arrived, I began checking the “Weekly Notice of Meetings” link on the Board page periodically. Early on Friday the link gave last week’s notice; at some point it began giving a “page not found error” (pdf of this from 7:45 PM 9/11/09).
I assumed the page was being updated and kept trying. Finally, at about 6:00 PM I realized that there would be no update and started searching. Sure enough, a search for “weekly notice” and September 2009 led me to this page which led me to the agenda linked above.
I wouldn’t make a big deal of this, except that this is an organization that has not updated their budget page with the state budget bad news from June; an organization with apparently nothing to post on “State and Federal budget issues” at the same time their Board of Education is writing op eds on the topic ; an organization whose “Recently in the News” page is stuck in January of 2009; an organization that has not issued a news release since June (at least according to their web site)…Communication is clearly a problem.
We’ve been hearing about communication problems for years. I have two pieces of advice. First, it is important to begin by getting the little things right. Second, if the people in charge of communications, the web page, public relations and all that are not doing their jobs well, find new people.
Now the obligatory but heartfelt clarification. There are many people at MMSD who have been consistently helpful with my requests for information. I know that if instead of periodically clicking today I had dropped the Board Secretary a note, I would have had the agenda in my in box and the link would have been fixed (instead I assumed an update was in process and took my son to the beach till it was too late to drop that note). I do appreciate the efforts that have been made.
Enough of my trials and tribulations, time for some notes on the agendas. First I want to note three things that are not there.
There is nothing about the budget reconciliation. Looking at the Board calendar, that means the earliest there will be a public discussion of what are major decisions about taxation, budgeting, spending and borrowing will be the October 5 committee meetings (things now go to committee before they go to the Board), or three weeks prior to the final approval of the tax levy and budget. State statues dictate that the budget be presented to the public one month prior to a public budget hearing. That was done in the Spring, but much as changed due to the miserable state budget. I think that an effort to make the local changes in a manner respectful of the spirit of public knowledge and input on the budget is in order (more on the budget revisions here and here). This is another little thing — or given the magnitude of the changes, big thing — in the realm of public engagement that is not being done correctly.
Second, and germane to the state created budget mess, I expected that there would be some discussion of resolutions to be proposed to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards. From the discussion at the August 17 meeting I was under the impression that these would be finalized at a public meeting prior to the September 15 deadline. Apparently these are being done outside the public eye, with no formal discussion or vote. Not good.
Last, there is an agenda item for an update on the “class and a half” specials fix, but no documentation. Id hope this isn’t another case like “Ready, Set, Goals” where the good intentions produced no tangible result.
No time to comment on what is on the agendas (maybe on Monday), except to say the item on short term borrowing highlights yet another way that Wisconsin’s school finance system is broken and if the people pushing value added really believe that reports like the one included are adding much of use in policy decisions, they need to stop drinking the Kool Aid (same goes for all the data fetishists in Arne Duncan’s gang).
Thomas J. Mertz
Filed under Accountability, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, education, Local News, Uncategorized
Education Tweak #10
Filed under Accountability, Arne Duncan, education, Gimme Some Truth, National News
Timely Material — “Accountability, Rigor, and Detracking: Achievement Effects of Embracing a Challenging Curriculum As a Universal Good for All Students”
Vodpod videos no longer available.
posted with vodpod
An article and video from the Teachers College Record on Detracking seem timely with the MMSD Board vote on a very slightly revised Talented and Gifted Education plan scheduled for Monday August 17 (public comment at 6:00 PM).
The interview is with Professor Kevin G. Welner who had a great essay “Obama’s Dalliance with Truthiness” in TCR earlier this month.
Needless to say, the reforms that Welner describes are very different than what MMSD is poised to enact. Madison is moving toward increased ability grouping. I do not believe the unrepresentative Advisory Committee ever considered Detracking. They certainly did not place that option before the Board or community.
I hope to have more on the TAG plan posted before Monday, but travel plans may make that impossible. Meanwhile more of my concerns are expressed in this post.
Thomas J. Mertz
Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized
Sherman Dorn Asks THE QUESTION and Offers Some Answers
Longtime readers should know that Sherman Dorn is one of my favorite people in the edusphere. His recent “How can we use bad measures in decisionmaking?” is a fine example of why I value his contributions so much.
His titular question is THE QUESTION at the heart of so much ed policy action these days. Nobody who isn’t seeking profits or losing their mind likes the tests being used — not Arne Duncan, not Barack Obama, not the people in Madison poised to build a Gifted Education house of cards on them — but almost nobody wants to give up on the tests and many want to expand their use (Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, those house of card builders in Madison).
Everyone talks of better tests, multimodal assessments, new ways of looking at data…. All this can be good, however we aren’t there yet and the simple-minded attraction of letting the flawed data “drive” education policy is strong (the current draft of the MMSD Strategic Plan has both reasonable data ” inform[ed]” and frightening “data driven” language). Additionally, at least three truths often get lost when better assessments and data are discussed (Dorn hits most of all of these).
- All assessments and data are of limited utility. They are snapshots at best; they are only designed to measure specific things; standard deviations and confidence intervals recognize some of the limits, but are rarely part of “accountability” discussions. the temptation to use assessments for things they are not designed for is always there.
- Because better assessments should mean assessing more things in more ways,fulfilling this promise will result in more time and resources devoted to assessment and analysis and less to teaching and learning.
- Employing multiple assessments or sophisticated data analysis (ie Value Added) moves away from transparency in accountability. It already clear that few policy makers, much less members of the public, understand the nature of current assessments and accountability practices. When you employ Value Added techniques all but the most statistically adept are shut out (some Value Added methods are proprietary and even those who commission the analysis are kept in the dark about the nature of that analysis; others are open, but beyond the understanding of most people). Combining multiple assessments, including qualitative approaches, produces similar issues. The MMSD Gifted plan is a perfect illustration. They promise to identify potential and achievement with referrals and multiple assessments over five domains (academic, creative, leadership, visual and performing arts) and then decide who gets the extra services based on “percentile scores.” Does anyone think that the promised “transparency” of this exercise will be meaningful to parents and Board members?
This was supposed to be about Sherman Dorn’s post, so back to that (although I think the above — especially the local stuff — is a salient context for what Dorn wrote).
After much good introductory material (including a link to the relatively recent, must read Broader, Bolder Approach Accountability Paper), Dorn explores a variety of positions relative to the problems of “data that cover too little,” and “data of questionable trustworthiness.” His presentation of their strengths and weaknesses is insightful and informative.
Dorn himself rejects both the “don’t worry” and “toss” extremes and seeks to extend (begin?) the conversation in pragmatic directions. Here is how he closes:
Even if you haven’t read Accountability Frankenstein or other entries on this blog, you have probably already sussed out my view that both “don’t worry” and “toss” are poor choices in addressing messy data. All other options should be on the table, usable for different circumstances and in different ways. Least explored? The last idea, modeling trustworthiness problems as formal uncertainty. I’m going to part from measurement researchers and say that the modeling should go beyond standard errors and measurement errors, or rather head in a different direction. There is no way to use standard errors or measurement errors to address issues of trustworthiness that go beyond sampling and reliability issues, or to structure a process to balance the inherently value-laden and political issues involved here.
The difficulty in looking coldly at messy and mediocre data generally revolve around the human tendency to prefer impressions of confidence and certainty over uncertainty, even when a rational examination and background knowledge should lead one to recognize the problems in trusting a set of data. One side of that coin is an emphasis on point estimates and firmly-drawn classification lines. The other side is to decide that one should entirely ignore messy and mediocre data because of the flaws. Neither is an appropriate response to the problem.
I probably don’t do justice to his post. Read the whole thing.
The reality is that bad data is being used and that the uses are expanding. I am not as sanguine as Sherman Dorn about the potential for better data and better ways of using it (I’m guessing he’d object to the word sanguine here, and he’d be right because it does not capture where I think he is coming from. Take it not as an absolute but only as a comparison with me), but I do know that explicit discussions of the issues involved like Dorn’s post are necessary to progress.
Thanks Sherman for the questions and answers.
Thomas J. Mertz
Big News out of Milwaukee (Updated)
Governor Jim Doyle (or his reps) , Mayor Tom Barrett (or his reps), and others (maybe Arne Duncan’s reps) are holding secret meetings to hijack the MPS Innovation and Improvement Advisory Committee for a Mayoral Control proposal. MPS Board President Michael Bonds has resigned from the Committee in Protest.
Lisa Kaiser has the full story, including excerpts from Bonds’ letter and reactions from the Mayor’s office. Milwaukee Talkee is looking for action to stop this and there is an online petition here.
Jim Doyle likes his secret meetings, Arne Duncan likes his Mayoral control, lots of elections to be considered with the expectation that an MPS shakeup would buy Doyle and Barrett some time; the Race to the Top beauty contest is part of this too.
Notice how none of this has to do with educating the students. Notice also that allowing Doyle and Barrett to say, “give the reforms a chance” and the Race to the Top funding are only short term remedies. At some point the chickens do come home to roost.
In a related note, The New Teacher Project gave Wisconsin’s chances for Race to the Top funding a very low rating. Mayoral control could change that. That said, I’m more than wary of making big changes in order to buy a lottery ticket in what is likely a rigged game (that goes for the use of bad student tests for teacher compensation decisions too).
Update: The Journal-Sentinel has more this morning, including an endorsement of the Doyle/Barrett plan from State Superintendent Tony Evers. Mayoral control was not included in the “Milwaukee Public Schools – An Agenda for Transformation” Evers campaigned on; his opponent — Rose Fernandez — pushed for dissolving the Milwaukee Board of Education and replacing it with a team appointed by the Mayor, the County Executive and the State Superintendent.
Thomas J. Mertz
MMSD “Gifted” Program Plan — No Thank You
Roy Lichtenstein, "No Thank You."
The Madison Board of Education will be considering a “Talented and Gifted Program Plan” at their Monday, August 10, Student Achievement and Performance Monitoring Committee meeting. It is on the agenda as an action item for the August 17 regular Board meeting. This plan was developed outside of the public eye — no noticed meetings of the Advisory Committee, no published minutes — and the first look any interested citizens have had was when it was posted on Friday. August 7.*
Although there are some things I like in the plan, my initial overall reaction is “no thank you.”
My number one reason for urging rejection is the lack of attention given to demographics in the plan. The word “minority” only appears in reference to the Minority Student Achievement Network, the phrase “low income” does not appear. There is nice language about increasing the “identification of students from underrepresented populations,” and researching “additional assessment tools that are non·biased, multi·cultural,” but at the time of implementation (September, 2010), the screening and identification measures that will be in place (the WKCE, the Primary Math Assessment, the Primary Language Arts Assessment, TOMAGS, Writing Samples, Middle School Math Assessment, referrals, and even the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking) do not have great track records in these areas (there is also a mention of MAP tests, but the meaning of that mention is not clear). Additionally, with the exception of the Torrance (and maybe TOMAGS) tests, these are all achievement, not ability, measures. They are not designed to be employed in the manner contemplated by the plan.
I said there are some things I like. These have some potential. I’m going to touch on three now (there are more — like the consistency throughout the district — that I don’t have time to delve into).
The first one is the requirement that the evaluation use data disaggregated by demographics (it also calls for annual reports, but as the case of the Equity Policy indicates, don’t hold your breath waiting for that). This is good. It would have been much, much better if the committee had instead begun their work by assessing the the current demographic inequalities in Talented and Gifted and advanced opportunities in MMSD.
The second is a guideline from the National Association for Gifted Children. In general, I am uncomfortable with the cut-and-paste inclusion of materials from a lobbying/advocacy organization in the plan, but this one is good:
Gifted programs must establish and use an advisory committee that reflects the cultural and socio-economic diversity of the school or school district’s total student population, and includes parents, community members, students, and school staff members.
This is clearly not the case with the current committee (is there a single member whose family income would qualify for free or reduced lunch? Do the families of 44.6% of the members?). Unfortunately, the locally produced “action steps” call for the current committee to continue and a sub-committee to be formed from current membership. This needs to be changed.
I also like the “Differentiated Education Plans,” but limiting these to “Talented and Gifted Students” is wrong. The one thing from the Strategic Plan draft that I can endorse without reservation is the policy of Individual Learning Plans for all students. This would be a wonderful but expensive reform. Only individualizing for those perceived as “Talented and Gifted,” is offensively inequitable.
Back to the things I don’t like (as you can tell, the lines are a bit blurry). Just two more that I have the time to address.
The plan asks the district to commit to “cluster grouping” in classroom assignments. The research on the benefits of “cluster grouping” is thin, the applicability of this research to Madison is questionable, and the potential for harm is great.
Since the Advisory Committee did not deign to provide the Board or the public with an extended exploration of what “cluster grouping” is, I’ll offer a little more here (contrast with this literature review provided to the Clayton, Mo. Board and note that if MMSD wants to do its own version there will be no extant research on that version).
According the Cluster Grouping Handbook, the practice requires dividing students into quintiles based on “local criteria” (that means those tests and referrals that have been so successful in bringing diversity to Talented and Gifted programs in Madison and elsewhere). The five groups are labeled Gifted, High Achieving, Average, Below Average, and Far Below Average. In classroom assignments, the Gifted are isolated from the Far Below Average and the High Achieving; the students are otherwise mixed. I repeat, the main “innovation” is to keep the “Far Below Average” and the “High Achievers” away from the “Gifted.”
Every student in Madison will be slotted into one of these categories and decisions concerning their education will be made based on incredibly imperfect assessment tools. We are talking about five and six year olds.**
As I said, the research on the supposed educational benefits of this is thin (in contrast, the research on the flaws of these assessment and referral practices, and on the harm done by labeling, is voluminous). The authors of the Handbook cite exactly two empirical studies. One of these is the unpublished Doctoral dissertation of Handbook co-author Dina Brulles. I could not find any peer-reviewed or non peer-reviewed publications of Dr. Brulles research. The other is a widely cited (but also not peer-reviewed) study by Marcia Gentry. My extensive searches of databases turned up other empirically based publications by Gentry, but none by other authors. I would welcome any citations.
Doctor Gentry conducted her research in schools that were less than 1% minority. Given the history of grouping practices and the demographics of Madison, I think extreme caution should be used in asserting the reproducibility of Gentry’s results in our district.
Additionally, the lack of diversity in her study means that important issues such as segregative and unequal impacts were not examined. At the very least, prior to implementation, the Board of Education and the public should be provided with assessments of segregation based on a trial run of the cluster grouping scheme. If the practice is implemented, these factors should also be included in all evaluations.
One of the asserted advantages of “cluster grouping” over tracking is that it allows for mobility among the quintiles. If cluster grouping is implemented, measures of this mobility in practice should also be part of evaluations. As Doctor Willis D. Hawley has noted, “Ability grouping often turns into tracking” (read the whole linked document for a fine introduction to the issues).
Cluster grouping may appear to be a politically attractive compromise. I am generally wary of both political compromises and grouping schemes in education policy, especially when the research basis for the desirability of the compromise is almost nonexistent. I urge the Board of Education to be wary also.
The other big area where I find the plan lacking is not about Talented and Gifted programing per se, but about advanced and honors programs and courses. The plan includes these action steps:
Develop a plan to increase participation of students in advanced courses, including support systems for transition to and completion of courses, and greater consistency in eligibility requirements across the District.
Review the design, implementation, and requirements for District embedded honors courses. Survey teachers, parents, and students to determine effectiveness and interest.
The idea is good, but do we really need a plan and a review? Here is what the Equity Task Force said in a recommendation that was never discussed in public by the Board of Education:
Open access to advanced programs, actively recruit students from historically underserved populations, and provide support for all students to be successful.
Pretty simple and it could be done tomorrow.
I’ll admit that some work would be needed to determine which courses have legitimate prerequisites, but with little effort, things like the “advanced biology placement test” and screening for 8th Grade Algebra could be tossed in the dustbin of history where they belong.
These entry level courses, the first rungs of the ladder, are the key to opening access; the barriers need to go. As long as the district puts these first rungs out of the reach of students who want to be challenged, inequalities will continue to be reproduced and upward mobility will be exception not the rule.
One related side note. These barriers are the reason I hate the “raise the bar” language that the Board of Education recently added to the Strategic Plan. We have enough bars keeping people out; the ambiguity invites more and higher bars.
Last thought is that the long-term costs — financial but also human — of this plan are not clearly explored in the document (there is offered a one year, prior to implementation figure of $83,000).
I’ll be offering some version of this critique in public testimony to the Board on Monday, August 10th. If you have thoughts — whether in agreement or disagreement with what I have written — please join me or email to comments@madison.k12.wi.us.
Thomas J. Mertz
*[Note: Because the Advisory Committee that produced the plan was not appointed by Board of Education, it is unclear if open meetings statutes are applicable, see: Staples Correspondence, February 10, 1981 and a 1991 memo to former MMSD Legal Counsel Clarence Sherrodd. If the Board approves this plan with the authorization of a continued Advisory Committee, that committee will be required to post meeting notices and publish minutes. Whatever the legality, it is not a good policy to have a plan which will effect every child in the district drafted without public scrutiny or input.]
**[Note: I am not clear what procedures are currently being used by MMSD although I have heard talk that some “cluster grouping” is going on. For sketchy information on current practices, see here and here.]
Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized
Race to the Bottom? – Quote of the Day
Overall, our results consistently indicate that the increased focus on individual teacher performance caused a sizable and statistically significant decline in student achievement. This decline in achievement is also much more pronounced in the case of national exams with an e ffect of up to 40% of a standard deviation. As in the different effects in terms of internal and external results, our triple-difference evidence also documents a significant increase of grade inflation. In addition, in support of a causal interpretation of our results, we also find that in almost all specifications and dependent variables there are no significant differences between the treatment and control groups over time before the introduction of merit-pay. Finally, the inclusion of different control variables or the consideration of different subsets of the data makes only very minor differences to the size of our estimates, as would be the case if assignment to treatment were random.
Graph and quote from Pedro S. Martins, “Individual Teacher Incentives, Student Achievement and Grade Inflation,” Institute for the Study of Labor (2009).
In 2007 Portugal instituted a merit pay plan. Azores and Madeira (the graph above) and private schools were excluded. Using these as a control, the quoted study found that this merit pay plan resulted in a decline is student achievement.
Arne Duncan and Barack Obama have made incentive pay plans a centerpiece of their “Race to the Top” scheme. It may be a path to the bottom.
More on the “Race to the Top” later this week.
Thomas J. Mertz
We are (Still) Not Alone
From the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (click on image for pdf). 2009-10 will look even worse.
It has been a long time since there has been a “we are not alone” post, reminding Madison readers that school finance is a state issue and needs a state solution.
It has been so long that there are many, many stories of school cuts and layoffs in Wisconsin from the last few months that I never got around to noting.
I want to begin with one of these older items — a story from before the state budget was passed — and then move on to more recent post state budget things. As districts struggle with the difficulties that budget has produced it is essential that these be understood in the context of 16 years of struggles under our broken school funding system.
The story is from Appleton and the headline says much about the erosion of education in Wisconsin: “Award bittersweet for laid -off Appleton teacher.” Here are some excerpts:
Appleton North High School teacher Kevin Deering will remember the last day of the school year with equal parts pleasure and pain.
On one hand, students surprised him Thursday by voting him North’s
Educator of the Year. On the other, it was Deering’s final day on the job after
district cost cutting forced layoffs of dozens of teachers for next school year….“It’s kind of an emotional thing,” he said afterward. “It’s a bittersweet ending
to get voted Educator of the Year and not being able to come back. When I
came to North I never thought I’d be leaving two years later.”Deering, 27, is in his fourth year of teaching, two of those in Appleton. He
teaches physical science, genetics, and biology. He is an advisor for Link
Crew, a program that eases freshmen into high school life, and has coached
girls track at Appleton East, football at North and boys track at North.“He will be missed,” said North Principal James Huggins…
The layoffs are the result of budget cuts that became necessary after a
failed referendum in February and account for more than half of the district’s
$3 million deficit for 2009-10 that was projected in March.With the state budget in deeper trouble than first thought, that figure could go higher.
Unlike last year, when most laid-off teachers, including Deering, were called
back, the number who will not return is substantial.
Due to the finalized state budget, we can now say it is all but certain the 43 teachers laid off earlier in Appleton — and the 40 teachers laid off by Oshkosh in March and all those laid off previously in other districts because the school funding system has been broken for 16 years — will not be called back. From bad to worse.
Oshkosh is now looking at more layoffs.
In the state budget Oshkosh was hit with a 3.76%, $2.3 million cut in general aid, as well the minimal revenue limit raise and categorical aid cut all districts must address, creating a $3.2 million hole to be filled (see here for an initial compilation of the impact on of the general aid changes to all individual districts).
As I write this the Board of Education is considering a depressing list of options which includes layoffs to paraprofessionals, counselors, interpreters, administrators and teachers (art, physical education and technology have been identified as possibilities); eliminating programs such as marketing; raising class sizes; raising taxes; and closing schools.
Update: WBAY and NBC26 report that the Board voted to close Green Meadow and Lincoln Elementary Schools. They also rejected the option of not filling open positions.
Yes, closing schools, in July. Video here from WLUK-TV of parent reactions to the news that their childrens’ schools are on the chopping block less than two months before the start of classes.
As the Northwestern reports, the families are angry. They are pitting one neighborhood against another, saying that different schools should be closed and saying the “”Oshkosh Area School District’s administrators and board members unfairly targeted Green Meadow.”
The anger is understandable and even good, but it needs to be redirected to the state officials who put the district in this impossible situation.
A few paragraphs from one of the Northwestern news story:
Administrators feel trapped by the unexpected revenue shortfall – the state has never before cut aid to schools in the 16-year history of the existing funding formula – because employment contracts have already been set. Reduction options are now limited to vacant positions and staff who were handed initial layoff notices in February but not let go in the first $2.2 million in budget cuts approved in May.
That means the proposed staffing reductions are based on limited options rather than student needs or interests, Lang said.
“All of our choices have a negative impact one way or another,” she said. Staff cuts hurt immediately, while reductions to site budgets or maintenance services could haunt the district in future years.
“We’re already living with the long term detriments from cuts made 10 years ago,” she said, referring to the district’s deferred maintenance problem….
On one end of the debate sits Board President Ben Schneider II, who said he would struggle to support a plan that raises taxes more than 3 percent.
“I don’t want to shock the system by shifting it all onto the tax payers,” he said. “I’m of the opinion that during a terrible economy we should be reducing taxes.”
Board member Karen Bowen, on the other hand, said she’d prefer a double-digit tax increase to cutting any more teachers or programs.
“I don’t think people really understand what our district will look like if we have to cut much deeper,” she said.
Bowen is right that people don’t understand. Otherwise you wouldn’t have powerful people like new Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Mike Tate making ridiculous and insulting claims that the state budget “strengthened” education. Districts need to educate their residents about the state of school finance in Wisconsin and then we all need to educate our state leaders and get them to act.
Bad news in Northeastern Wisconsin also, especially Door County. Because of vacation homes, Door County is a high property value area In combination with declining enrollment this has meant real problems for these districts under Wisconsin’s school finance system. Since the full time residents who vote in referenda are not wealthy, they have also had great difficulties applying those temporary band aids. The decline in relative state funding in the recent state budget aggravated the existing problems (click here for details of how the similar “The Lake Effect” combination has hit Northern Tier districts). Here is what the Press Gazette reports some Door County districts (and others) are facing:
- “Sturgeon Bay is set to take a 15.19 percent hit in general aid, according to this month’s estimates from the state education department. That change will take the 1,100-student district’s general aid allocation from nearly $5.2 million to nearly $4.4 million.”
- “The Southern Door district also is facing a 15.19 percent decrease in general aid, according to state estimates. That change will mean the district takes in $3.2 million in general aid instead of nearly $3.8 million.”
- “The Sevastopol School District is facing almost an identical cut, an estimated 15.18 percent, as is the Gibraltar School District, an estimated 15.17 percent.”
- “In Marinette County, the Crivitz School District is facing a 15.18 percent decrease in general state aid. Funding could drop by about $172,000, from $1.1 million to $963,000.”
- “In Ashwaubenon, the reduction will drop general aid allocation from more than $12.5 million to nearly $11.9 million.”
Bad all over.
A few more.
Wausau Daily Herald, “Everest, Merrill school districts face shortfalls.”
Reedsburg Times Press, “School will resort to tax hike.”
Racine Journal Times, “”Unified prepares for budget task ahead.”
Kenosha News, “Lower state aid might force cuts in Salem schools” (AMPS readers might recall the referendum struggles in Salem).
LaCrosse Tribune, “Tax hike ahead? La Crosse school officials point out ‘worst-case scenario.’”
And one last reminder that despite what Governor Jim Doyle has tried to get you to believe, at the local level ARRA Title I and IDEA stimulus funds mostly cannot be used not make up for the short falls.
Stay tuned for more (sadly).
If you want less, you have to get involved in the reform efforts. Click here for a guide to organizations to join, links to contacting the media and state officials and more.
If we all sit back and shake our heads at how bad things are but do nothing more, this will never get better. Get involved.
Thomas J. Mertz
Before the Teachers Get the Blame
The Wausau Daily Herald has a story up entitled “Removal of state cap on teacher salaries expected to increase taxes.” The removal of the QEO without comprehensive school funding reform was a bad idea, but it is much too early to tell what the post-QEO contracts look like and whether they will contribute to property tax increases.
No matter if the post QEO settlements are more than 3.8% or less than 3.8%, it isn’t too early to tell that there will be property tax increases.
Besides forcing greater than usual programing cuts on school districts, the recently passed Wisconsin budget accelerated the shift in education funding to property taxes. With all the last minute, behind closed doors changes, I’ve been having trouble getting numbers I’m confident of, but the state funding according to the old formula used to arrive at the old 2/3 guarantee will be in the 61% to 62% range this biennium. If you take out the levy credits – money that never goes near a school — the level of state funding looks to be about 50%.
Madison — with no new teacher contract at this time — will have to use $9 million more in local monies simply to cut $3 million from the programs included in the balanced budget passed in May (or use the Fund balance or re-budget, this $3 million cannot be made up by property taxes under the revenue caps). $3 million in cuts and $9 million in revenues needed and none of this involves the QEO repeal. If all the $9 million is shifted to property tax payers, it would lead to about a 54¢ mil rate increase, or about $135 on a $250,000 home. None of this has anything to do with the QEO repeal.
Actually, that’s not quite true, they are related because the same people are responsible. The QEO repeal, the shift in education funding to property taxes, the mandated program cuts, the unwillingness to move on comprehensive school funding reform, the betrayal of the Wisconsin Promise of “A Quality Education for Every Child,” are all examples of the kind of “leadership” Wisconsin has, the sad state of of the Governor’s office, the Assembly and the State Senate.
When property taxes go up, put the blame and the pressure where it belongs; give Governor Doyle and your representatives the message.
Thomas J. Mertz
Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Budget, Contracts, education, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, School Finance, Take Action
AMPS 